CIPAA operates prospectively, not retrospectively, preserving substantive rights under prior agreements.

[1] We heard these three appeals together given the commonality of issues in the questions of law raised for our determination. In simple terms, the common issues invite an obvious and identical question of whether the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("the CIPAA" for short) which came into force on 15 April 2014 is to be construed as having a retrospective or prospective operation. Quite apart from this question, however, one matter deserves early mention, which is that in these appeals, there are several other questions of law raised by the appellant in respect of which this court had allowed their application for leave to appeal. Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-126-12-2018(W) (the 126 Appeal), at the outset had indicated to this court that submission would be made on the 126 Appeal only since Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-124-12-2018(W) ("the 124 Appeal") and Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-125-12-2018(W) ("the 125 Appeal") involved identical issue and he would deal with the question in connection with this common issue first. If it is determined that the CIPAA is intended to be prospective, all other questions of law will be rendered academic. Upon hearing all learned counsel on this question, we adjourned for deliberation and intimated that the detailed grounds of our decision would be given later. We propose to give reasons for our decision in these appeals at the same time in one judgment, that is, in the 126 Appeal.

[2] One note-worthy feature of these appeals which also merits early mention is that the instant appeals were heard back-to-back with two other separate appeals involving parties who were not the parties herein. These two appeals concern the same issue as highlighted above raising in consequence arguments which are similar in almost every detail by both learned counsel for the respective parties. The appeals in question are Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v. Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. The decision of the court of Appeal is reported in Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal, [2018] 4 MLJ 640. We shall refer to Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, supra, in this judgment where necessary.

[3] Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to emphasise at this stage that this judgment is delivered pursuant to s 78 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 due to the retirement of Richard Malanjum, CJ (as His Lordship then was). This is therefore a decision of the remaining members of the panel which is reached unanimously.

Questions Of Law For Determination

[4] The relevant questions of law in respect of this issue in the 124 Appeal and the 126 Appeal are found in Question 4 in each appeal which are similarly expressed in the following terms:

"Whether CIPAA 2012 gives rise to substantive rights and is consequently not retrospective in nature, making the Adjudication Decision liable to be set aside?"

In contrast, the question of law in the 125 Appeal, which is Question 1, is formulated in slightly different terms and it reads:

"Whether the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 ("CIPAA") which came into force on 15 April 2014 is retrospectively applicable to a sub-contract that was signed and dated prior to the enforcement date, or will it render the entire Adjudication proceedings, including the Adjudication Decision, void?"

[5] Before we go more closely into the matter, it is certainly noteworthy that the respondent was awarded sub-contracts by the appellant which took place before the CIPAA came into force on 15 Apr